Te Pāti Māori decision: Debate primed for filibuster
Labour is unlikely to engage in filibustering to slow progress of a debate into whether three Te Pāti Māori MPs should be suspended from Parliament after performing a haka during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill.
And the president of Te Pāti Māori says Parliament needs to recognise that society is evolving and tikanga Māori should be incorporated increasingly more into the House.
It has been recommended to the Speaker of the House by the Privileges Committee that Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngārewa-Packer, and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke (who led the haka Ka Mate but showed contrition) receive stand-downs of 21 and seven sitting days, respectively.
The debate is set to begin on this afternoon and could go on well into the night - or even for weeks.
The Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT party, aimed to clarify the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and to establish a clear legal framework for how these principles should be understood and applied in New Zealand law. It was defeated at a second reading last month.
Unusually for New Zealand's Parliament, it will be a debate primed for filibuster.
Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee set out the parameters last week, including that all 123 MPs will be allowed to speak. If any amendment is put forward, they would then be allowed to speak again. Such amendments could include a change to the length of the suspensions.
Should the debate continue long enough, the Budget, to be delivered on Thursday, would take precedence over it and Te Pāti Māori MPs would be able to participate - including having their votes against the Budget recorded.
Parliament's public gallery will be closed today, but a protest is planned on the forecourt in Wellington.
Te Pāti Māori MPs Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke face ACT MPs as they perform the haka. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins
Green Party musterer Ricardo Menéndez March said the proposed ban was unprecedented and of concern to all the party's MPs, so it was likely they would want to speak during the debate.
"It raises really really serious concerns about whether this new standard only applies when haka, waiata or tikanga Māori is used in the House."
The Greens were hoping to be able to speak with government MPs and ultimately be able to reduce the penalty that had been given, he said - but elected Te Pāti Māori MPs should be able to vote during the Budget procedures.
"We will be using the tools available to us to ensure that we can challenge this decision however we can."
Menéndez March said he would not accept "performative outrage" on the issue of filibustering from government MPs.
"They're the ones who have chosen to deal an unprecedented punishment and are unable to reflect on the issue that many have been raising about how tikanga can be better incorporated in the House."
Labour leader Chris Hipkins agreed the proposed punishment was disproportionate. Hipkins told RNZ's Morning Report programme today there should be some kind of sanction, but the penalty on the table was too extreme.
"Two other MPs have been sanctioned in this term of Parliament for bullying and intimidating behaviour - one National MP and one Green MP. Neither of them was suspended from the service of the House at all."
Te Pāti Māori had a right to protest against the Treaty Principles Bill, he believed.
"Frankly if they'd done the haka 90 seconds later I would've supported it - because the vote would've been declared, they would've been doing the haka after the vote as a form of protest to the law that Parliament had just passed."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon yesterday ruled out any compromise, so a deal between the government and Opposition for a shorter debate seems unlikely.
ACT leader David Seymour, whose bill prompted the haka, told RNZ Te Pāti Māori's actions showed its MPs believed their behaviour was acceptable.
"I hope the debate will be over very quickly ... this is Budget week and New Zealanders deserve to see how the government will manage the economy over the coming year, not hijinks in response to very wrong hijinks of Te Pāti Māori.
"These are unprecedented offences and they deserve unprecedented penalties."
He said the previous record of three days suspension, handed to former Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon for publicly criticising the Speaker of the House, was "very different from breaking ancient laws of our Parliament - tikanga if you like - that you should not leave your seat".
"If they believe that is a legitimate way to do business, the punishment should be strong enough to persuade them of that belief, and I'd give them three months.
"If it was up to me, a 90-day sentence of suspension but then subtract all the days they haven't shown up anyway. Like time served."
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, who was on the Privileges Committee that proposed the punishments, has long decried what he sees as falling standards at Parliament, putting the first-reading haka into that category.
It will therefore be up to the Speaker and the opposition parties how long the debate lasts, and Brownlee has stated his willingness to support the minority in this case.
Whether the disruption to the government's agenda is worth potential backlash for time wasting will be the political calculation being made.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
21 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Wait, who's keeping track of the rules around here?
Welcome to the House of Representatives, where the standing orders one week aren't the same the next week. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Do you ever get tired of people beating the same old drum? Some are worn down from so much use that what once were crashing bangs are now dull thuds. In the House of Representatives, for example, the cost-of-living drum once beat loudly and now sounds more like a low hum. But most thrashed is the standing orders drum, whose cymbals are so coated in patina it's hard to know what the writing underneath says – so you might as well just make it up as you go along. For Tuesday's question time session, Labour leader Chris Hipkins and prime minister Christopher Luxon beat their same old drum ('does he stand by all his government's statements and actions?', 'yes') and landed on the same old notes that the government swears are still in tune. But when Hipkins tried to press Luxon on why the average Hohepa should cough up nearly $100 to see their doctor while tobacco companies have enjoyed a massive tax cut, he pressed someone else's buttons instead. 'Point of order.' Winston Peters rose to his feet. No one should be able to come into this House and base a question on a supposed $300m tax cut – 'and it was $200m', he clarified – which came from a reduction in the sales of cigarettes and tobacco, and amount it to what he's saying. 'And they've done it for the umpteenth time.' Finance minister Nicola Willis, perhaps in audition mode for the role of future prime minister, egged the show on: 'Give him some advice! Surely you get it?' And the voice of Labour MP Megan Woods cooed back, 'ooohh, Nicola!' The speaker and the Chrises moved on, but Peters couldn't let go of the tobacco conversation. While Chippy now wanted to talk about tax breaks for tech companies, Peters wanted to clear up the record for the misunderstood tobacconists bravely and boldly trying to operate in an increasingly pro-health world. 'Point of order, Mr Speaker,' he began. 'We have sat here for month after month while those members have repeated that lie in the House.' He carried on, but there was something flapping around in his periphery, the arms of Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick trying to get the speaker's attention. 'Seriously?' Swarbrick – back from a week-long ban from the House for encouraging her fellow MPs across the aisle to look into the benefits of growth in the vertebrae – cried out. Longtime fans of parliament's standing orders may remember the fact that 'reflecting on a member's character' – in this case, implying or straight up saying they're lying/are a liar – is a punishable enough offence to get kicked out of the House, like when Labour's Willie Jackson was ejected from the chambers last year for calling David Seymour a 'liar'. Hipkins rose for a point of order. Mr Speaker, just last week you named and ejected a member for saying they were struggling to find members with a backbone – 'how is accusing members of lying any different?' Well, Brownlee replied, 'it is quite different in my head' – because one of those comments was directed 'very personally at members of parliament', and the other was a question about repeating a lie. Interesting point – no two days are ever truly the same in this building, so why should the way the rules are applied be the same every day? 'Wait on, what I'd say to you is,' Brownlee began, and quickly corrected himself. 'Oh, I don't like that saying. The member knows there is a remedy by way of the standing orders to have that corrected.' Raising a privilege complaint would be 'pushing it too far', Brownlee told Hipkins, and all the while, Peters grinned away in his seat. Trying to turn the tide back into the left bloc's favour, Hipkins channelled his inner gen Z to let the nation know he's still cool and with the kids, unlike that other Chris across the aisle. 'When he says that the economy and the country are turning the corner, while food prices continue to skyrocket, unemployment continues to go up,' Hipkins began, 'why won't he simply admit that his government is all 'delulu' and no 'solulu'?' 'Sorry, could he repeat the question?' Luxon asked. 'I didn't understand it.' No, we don't need that repeated, Brownlee decided – we'll move on. It didn't take long for Peters to resume the defensive position, after Labour's finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds questioned Willis over the dead-in-the-water iRex ferry project, which cost $671m and returned no new ferries. Peters was keen to rectify another 'lie' – actually, the previous Labour government had already spent $471m on the project before we even came to power, he told the House. Peters sought leave from Brownlee to 'table an article' – which was actually commentary to the select committee – from February 2024, when KiwiRail confirmed the price tag from the Labour side. Brownlee let him, but not correcting Peters' use of 'article' came back to bite him when Labour's Kieran McAnulty stood up, and asked to 'table a document which shows Christopher Luxon is the least popular prime minister in 30 years'. 'Check yourself before you wreck yourself,' Peters called. What ensued was a small back and forth, where Brownlee conceded he had made a rare misstep, but now it was time to get on with it. 'You can disrupt the House all you like, I'm not changing my mind,' Brownlee told McAnulty. 'Stop trifling in my direction.'
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Who's afraid of Aotearoa
Across Aotearoa – or New Zealand, depending on the speaker – resistance to te reo Māori and calls to roll it back from public life are growing louder. In Parliament, lawmakers are pushing a growing number of policies that critics say erode Māori culture and put New Zealand at risk of losing its cultural identity. Among the policies, cuts to te reo Māori teacher training, mandating English first in public service naming and communication, the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora (Māori Health Authority), reversal of co-governance reforms, and undermining local Māori representation. The coalition also supported the Treaty Principles Bill, pushed by Act, which aimed to enshrine fixed principles of the Treaty and extend these to all New Zealanders, effectively diluting Māori-specific rights. The bill was ultimately rejected by Parliament. Just last week, it was revealed that Education Minister Erica Stanford stopped the printing of new editions of a series of books designed to teach Year 1s how to read, which included te reo words, while last month in Parliament, Foreign Minister Winston Peters refused to call New Zealand 'Aotearoa'. Together, these measures signal a retreat from decades of progress toward biculturalism, says associate professor Awanui Te Huia, who teaches Māori studies at Victoria University. 'The issue that these policies have created is it emboldens those [racist] positions and it treats the irrational as rational,' she tells The Detail. 'When we're hearing these anti-Tiriti or Waitangi statements, when we hear these anti-Māori, anti-te reo Māori statements, and they are being put forward as rational and considered arguments, this is when we have some of the trouble … it platforms particular perspectives that are harmful for our community, harmful for cohesion.' She says the revival of te reo is one of our greatest national achievements – proof of a country willing to confront its past and weave its two founding cultures together. But she worries the Government's policies will stall momentum. 'It's not a zero-sum game. If te reo Māori is doing well, that does not take anything away from another person; it's additive.' And she says the cost of the rollback of Māori rights and culture is damaging. 'There is considerable racism that happens in our communities, and that has multiple implications across the spectrum – on economics … on our socio-political spectrums.' Māori journalist Ella Stewart has been covering the policy changes for RNZ's in-depth department. She tells The Detail that the Māori community is hurting, but also pushing back. 'I have spoken to a raft of people, in my personal life but also just in reporting … I remember speaking to Tureiti Moxon a couple of weeks ago, and she said that this partnership that's been forged many years ago, over decades and decades, to get to a point where Māori are actually at the decision-making table – she said that's all been taken away. 'You have also got Māori legal scholars, Te Tiriti/Treaty experts, like Carwyn Jones, who said to me, 'We are seeing that this Government has a clear strategy of removing Māori rights and removing the ability of Te Tiriti to have any impact in our law.' She says, from her conversations, people would prefer if the Government focused on big-picture issues, rather than stripping te reo Māori from agency names and books. 'I think they are mainly upset because there are some issues that are being focused on that arguably the Government could be spending time doing something more important … on more pressing issues for our people rather than 'Should the name of New Zealand be New Zealand or Aotearoa', maybe focus on how you can further our people.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill to replace Three Waters passes final hurdle
By Lillian Hanley of RNZ The government's final piece of legislation to implement 'Local Water Done Well', replacing Labour's Three Waters, has passed its third reading. National MP Ryan Hamilton hailed the legislation, saying "hello localism and choice", while Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi called it "an atrocious piece of work." The government has said the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill provide a "flexible" framework for local councils to address challenges related to drinking water, waste water and stormwater services. NZ First's Casey Costello led the debate, calling it the government's "urgently required" plan to "address challenges with New Zealand's water services." "Simply put, chronic underinvestment and the lack of sustainable management of local government water services has come home to roost." Costello said councils would be able to choose the best structure for "financially sustainable water services that meet regulatory requirements and local needs". "I want to keep repeating that Local Water Done Well will maintain local ownership, choice, and decision-making. That gives councils the best shot at identifying their most pressing problems and the right approach to solving them." National MP Ryan Hamilton hailed the passing of the government's Three Waters replacement. "Goodbye Three Waters, hello Local Water Done Well. Goodbye co-governance, hello locally chosen and designed options. "Hello localism and choice." NZ First's Jamie Arbuckle highlighted the removal of "co-governance" in the legislation. "Isn't it great to get rid of co-governance from this piece of legislation? Get rid of it! We are about New Zealanders. We are about Kiwis." But the opposition slammed the legislation, with Labour's Megan Woods saying it "shifts the financial risk" to councils and ratepayers. She criticised the government's response to Three Waters as it had got rid of the economies of scale and "the money that could have been saved", allowing for a "proliferation" of water service entities. "What the government said was 'Oh no there's two few entities, there's not enough room for local decision making under the previous government plans'." But the changes had led to an average increase in water charges for households, she said. Tangi Utikere, Labour's spokesperson for local government, said there was no adequate financial support to those councils for the changes the government was seeking to implement. Te Pāti Māori's Mariameno Kapa-Kingi criticised the government for "ignoring the role of Māori in the delivery of water services." "Removing these provisions is not progress, it is reform, it is regression and it is deeply and only racist." She said the bill in its thinking and design ignored and dismissed how "tangata tiriti get to live here", referencing Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She implored the government to "get the education" and concluded by saying "what an atrocious piece of work."
